I would never been seen in the company of an anti-gay Tory, and would severe all ties with anyone who held such repugnant views and who was actively working against our collective rights.

Like Ben I cannot understand the mentality of somehow who says they have no problems with people who happen to be gay, except that they shouldn’t have the same rights as everybody else. If I’m a bigot for being intolerant of such people, so be it.

No it doesn’t make you a bigot because you don’t say he can’t think what he likes and unlike him you don’t seek to limit anyone else’s rights. You just say, quite rightly, that you would sever your ties with such people and so would I.

So I would assume then he would consider his heterosexuality and marriage a lifestyle choice? Odd that when it comes to gay people, ours is always referred to as a lifestyle, yet it’s never applied to a heterosexual. Now if he said religion is a lifestyle choice, then yes, he’d be right.

I’m glad his so called ‘gay friends’ are not so comfortable around him as much as they may have been I’m glad he’s had a difficult time up until the vote and I hope that continues. Isn’t it revealing that a lot of those who voted against equal marriage suddenly have gay friends so they can’t be called a homophobe. Smiling at them in the face then stabbing them in the back last tuesday all because of the religionists in his constituency. That’s what I call outright bigotry. Delusional fool just doesn’t get it does he. We’ll remember him in 2015. We should all make a concerted effort up and down the country to try to unseat these vile people.

So good to see that distinction spelt out by you, Robert. Yes, “lifestyle” is a powerful put-down. It says: ‘BEING gay is a fallacy. You choose to DO “gay”.’

I maintain that the heterosexuals who insist that we have chosen a lifestyle are the ones who know that they have chosen to bury their homosexuality and adopt the facade, the guise, the masquerade of being part of a heterosexual couple.

They don’t want us fully accepted, put on the same level as them, because it will mean that their suppression of their homosexuality will all have been in vain!

I’ve had a number of dealings with Henry Smith when he was leader of West Sussex County Council, a Tory run council.

I must say I’ve always found him fair and reasonable in his dealings and he was always quick to send written replies to my questions and so on.

I was very disappointed to hear prior to the vote in Parliament that he was going to vote against, especially as he Nick Gibb MP (My MP) and Nick Herbert MP and even Sir Peter Botomley MP voted in favour.

OF COURSE it has been difficult and stilted seeing your gay friends. You are, in effect, saying to them ‘I don’t regard you and your ‘lifestyle choice’ as equal to mine and I will vote for you to continue to be regarded as the second class citizens’. I am surprised they give you the time of day.

My goodness, these Tory homophobes are so determined to defeat the Bill that at least one of them has resorted to playground-style bullying, name-calling, taunting other members, dubbing them “chickens”!

In effect Henry Smith is saying, “If you don’t vote to defeat the queers getting married, then you’re a chicken, you’re a coward, you’re gutless!”

And that, friends, is fighting DIRTY.

The debate last week WAS restrained. Seems Henry Smith has decided it’s time to start hitting below the belt and using the tactics of the playground bully.

Forgive me if I’m missing your point, Dave, but I can’t see the contradiction. Isn’t he claiming there is no middle ground, that one has to be either for or against, and that people who try to stay in the middle-ground, i.e., by abstaining, are chickens, afraid of saying either aye or nay?

He said he was “disappointed on how polarised the equal marriage debate had become.” So, I thought he meant it would be better if MPs took a more nuanced view. But maybe your interpretation is correct.

I think he’s a gutless wonder, in his own words a “chicken”, and in your words I think he has “bottled” it, a weak-minded individual who caved based on how many emails he received. If I’d know I would have set up a system to generate huge number of similar but different emails and blanketed every MP with pro-equality emails.

Is this what doing the right thing means – cowering to the group who can send the highest number of emails? Who knew? And if that is the case there is no need for MPs any more because we can devise a system where democracy is controlled directly by the people, and all laws are passed based on the number of emails we send in. He wanted as devolved a democracy as possible, I can’t think of anything more democratic than me sending in an email which is electronically counted and at a cut-off date the new law automatically into effect without any of this stupid MPs debating nonsense.

Bollocks.
If a politician cannot make a genuine decision in an unwhipped vote, then he doesnt deserve to be in the job.

Abstaining is just a total cop-out to avoid demonstrating any responsibility.
Let’s face it, either way you vote in this matter, you will get supporters and critics, and if you can’t handle that, you should sod off and let somebody in who can.

The “courage of his convictions” is a phrase we normally apply when an honest person has had the courage of his convictions in circumstances where there was pressure to cover up, hide, or, in some other way, not adhere to the truth.

Now, in Mr. Smith’s case he has not adhered to the truth: he has adhered to the opposite, to discrimination, to homophobia. Therefore one cannot credit him.

PinkNews covers religion, politics, entertainment, finance, and community news for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community in the UK and worldwide. Founded to produce broadsheet quality journalism for the LGBT community, we cover politics to theology in an intelligent manner.